Posted
by
Zonk
on Thursday May 18, 2006 @12:11PM
from the what-he-knew dept.

hdtv writes "Wired News has published the details of NSA wiretap and revealed former AT&T technician Mark Klein as the main whistleblower, specifically covering the evidence he presented when he came forward." From the article: "In this recently surfaced statement, Klein details his discovery of an alleged surveillance operation in an AT&T office in San Francisco, and offers his interpretation of company documents that he believes support his case. For its part, AT&T is asking a federal judge to keep those documents out of court, and to order the EFF to return them to the company."

In other new a large contingent of FBI agents have converged on a Milford Michigan Hourse farm notorius for secret mob meeting to search for the body of Jimmy Hoffa. The FBI will search four specific locations identified by a creditable informant.

Some supporters of the Bush Administration have actually seriously suggested that blowing the whistle on this out of concerns of illegality SHOULD result in serious prosecution and detention.

In fact, I monitor Little Green Footballs from time to time, and I thought to check the LGF spin on the matter, and one of the first things they did with the NSA phone database story was focus on the fact that it was a leak, not the concerns of the apparent illegality of the program.

What do you mean, "some supporters?" Wasn't it reported that the Administration supports a bill that would make any kind of whistleblowing on Homeland Security illegal?If you've ever wondered why all the mergers of the telcos go unchallenged, this is the reason. If you only have to deal with a couple of companies, ones that know you can legally split them up under monopoly laws, you can make them do whatever you like. AT&T is almost as large as it was back before it was forced to divest.

Yep, that is what it is all about. People have long since forgot what being a true hero and patriot really meant. You don't have to grab a gun an form a milita to do your part. Well, you may if you wait long enough.

More people need to stand up and expose governments (Not just the U.S. [slashdot.org]) for what they really are. Fight back people.

From the summary: For its part, AT&T is asking a federal judge to keep those documents out of court, and to order the EFF to return them to the company."

Forbes has an article [forbes.com] on how the EFF has won the first round by getting the judge to agree that the documents should be released. Of course, AT&T will get a chance to scrub them clean of "trade secrets", a loophole they will no doubt abuse. However, at least the judge is showing a willingness to get down into the nitty-gritty.

The Government is apparently trying to get the evidence quashed independently, claiming state secrets priviledge. (The Wired article claims that this comes from UK Common Law, but UK common law comes from the Magna Carta and the Magna Carta made no such provision. Indeed, it stated clearly that nobody could be denied the right to justice, and that courts were forbidden from ruling on the basis of a single person's unsupported testimony, which is what a secrecy order without proof would be.)

In the same way that a trade secret that becomes public ceases to be protectable as a trade secret, I would have though that this would cease to merit any protections as it is self-evidently no longer secret, whatever the state may say.

So, on the basis that state secrets does NOT appear to be a valid piece of Common Law, and that there is no secret left to protect, I can see no justification for quashing this evidence. Furthermore, as the documents HAVE been published openly, AT&T have lost all rights to their claim of trade secrets, and so I can see no obvious justification of the evidence even being sealed. We already know what the bulk of it says, as it's online!

The argument over who is right and who is wrong is, in this case, largely academic. The tapping has already been done, the publication has already been done. All the damage either side could possibly suffer is all past-tense. What is present-tense is what arguments either side present to justify their actions, and what evidence they are permitted to present in support of their claims.

I thought a trade secret that was revealed through an illegal act was still a trade secret. Somebody stealing documents and releasing them wouldn't void the trade secret status, however if the documents was lost in a public place by a person authorized transport the documents would, of course IANAL.

When the evidence surfaced, there was the usual fracas about rights and privacy and yadda yadda, and then nothing got done for a few days. Then, the contents of this so-called secret room became public knowledge (Those commercially available network monitoring devices that were mentioned in a previous slashdot article.)

Those few days were more than enough to completely change the contents of that room. I'm not saying that that is what happened, I'm just saying that there is no way for us to know if the contents of the supposed secret room stayed the same. What would you do if you were the NSA and you were monitoring a goodly percentage of internet traffic and got found out? You'd try your damndest to hide it, because you're the NSA and that's what you do.

Plus, if any of this gets successfully filed under 'Homeland Security' you're never going to get a judge to do anything but blow smoke.

Not to mention the great journalistic integrity of the mass media managed to simply say "Well no one should care because it is for catching terrorists"The daily show had a nice montage of the so called journalists not bothering to uncover a real story.

I dont get journalism, their is this prestige of it that people that go into journalism for ala Woodward and Bernstein. But they end up covering "so and so turned 100 today and she has this to say" and "Your house just burned down, your family was murdered, tell us how you feel"

Then this oppurtunity comes along and they do nothing.

When are people gonna start making journalist jokes similar to lawyer jokes. Both professions do have "good people" in it, but many many of them are just hacks and should not be looked up to.

Call it a hunch but I believe that if not now, then definatly in a few years, words like torrent, mp3, and avi will work just as well as bomb or Jihad. Our government has been bought and paid for and today's terror monitoring is tomorrow's corporate sponsored public monitoring.

Back in the olden days perhaps, but you can bet the modern snoopboxes are programmed to look for too many occurrences of keywords too close together and perform linguistical analysis of their contextual usages in order to filter out and ignore the spookbait.

Yep, exactly right, which is why it's bullshit that this is about terrorism. This is about spying on Americans. They want to know who is leaking things like Abu Ghraib photos, or info about the torture camps in Eastern Europe.

There's a story called "Addressee Unkown" by Kathrine Kressmann Taylor that might portray a more realistic outcome rather a DDOS. You've gotta remember the NSA has a lot of hardware -- they are government.

In the story, two friends correspond: one who left nazi germany for the states and one who stayed. The one who stayed started justifying the nazis, which pissed off his buddy who was a Jew. For retaliation, he started writing back dropping Jewish references. The guy in Germany started freaking out asking

Note the inferences from internal documents that such rooms were built not just in San Francisco, but in Seattle and other cities.Also note that this is literally vacuuming up all the message traffic which bounces thru all these locations, even if it's US to US.

Theoretically, they could then disregard traffic that is US to US, but the tendency among intel agencies is to always build it so that you can inspect the raw flow when you want to.

This goes back to an argument my someone I know and I have had over this. She's mostly pro-Bush, I... voted for Badnarik because of Bush. I support law and order... real law and order. I think that national security is never a justification for attacking due process of law. Even if we have to have secret trials by jury because the evidence is so dangerous, I don't think things should be hidden from the courts.

Like a lot of Bush supporters, she cites the leaks of information as reasons to not take this to court, but I say just prosecute people who leak information that needs to be confidential and that the public really doesn't need to know about. However, national security is never grounds to hide from judicial review attacks on the Constitution. People who bring evidence of criminal or unconstitutional actions need to be protected by the courts.

Something has to be done to protect these people. If I were governor, I would give him a state police protection detail and make it be known that any federal agent who tries to arrest him will be charged with felony kidnapping in a state court. The states need to stand up and protect their citizens. My state, VA, has an obligation to me to protect me from unconstitutional federal abuse because if the feds act outside of the enumerated powers, it's state jurisdiction and any federal coercion in that respect is criminal conduct. Federal agents who abuse, injur or kill people, especially outside of the Constitution's limits on their jurisdictions are criminals, not law enforcement agents and ought to be prosecuted by the the states accordingly.

got 'em dead to rights as I read it. now, if this was authorized under the telecom act, no issues. if not, the class-action lawsuit and the pending FCC investigation should bankrupt the long-haul companies that implemented the spytaps.

Mark Klein and all others who expose these attacks against American's civil liberties are true heros to the Republic. These neocon scumbugs know their days are number and will have to go all out on police state in order to continue against the American people, who are the REAL suspect and criminals behind 911, not some fantasy outfit called al Qaeda/make believe war on terror.

HOLY HELL DO YOU MEAN THAT ALL MY INTERNET TRAFFIC IS UNENCRYPTED AND CAN BE SEEN BY ANYONE ON THE INTERNET?

Folks, the Big Thing everyone is missing here is that any clown with a packet sniffer can see just about anything.

Chances of this turning into some giant impeachment proceeding? Nil. Why? Because similar to the pen registers (which are also warrantless), there is no assumption of privacy on the internet. Everything sent in plaintext is plain to see. Now, should the NSA be required to get a

Now, should the NSA be required to get a warrant to break the encryption on encrypted data? Yes, there is an assumption of privacy. Can they log it without breaking it? Absolutely. Having your encrypted data in still encrypted format does not violate your privacy.

Do you really that the NSA is just archiving all this data to tape, hoping that if they need to decrypt it at some unknown future date that they would first go get a court order? If you do then I have a bridge in New York that I'd like to sell you

True, there's no evidence that's been made public. Yet. But if you think they're going to sit on encrypted data that they intercept and not do anything with it then you are in real need of a reality check.

Here's the NSA's own description of themselves:

The National Security Agency/Central Security Service is America's cryptologic organization. It coordinates, directs, and performs highly specialized activities to protect U.S. government in

"Folks, the Big Thing everyone is missing here is that any clown with a packet sniffer can see just about anything."

That's not true. You can only see what's going on on your local network. OTOH, this government program is reviewing practically all internet traffic. Do you see the difference there? I can probably sniff what my neighbor is reading on my cable link, but I won't be able to sniff what Joe Nobody is doing clear on the other side of the country (unless I hack into routers/machines on his network

And yes kiddies, that means that the so called Whistleblower in the Nixon case who was named for a porn flick was in fact simply a leaker

More than simply a leaker - a disgruntled employee at FBI that was miffed he got passed over. Of course, Nixon was most definitely engaging in illegal activities. What will Slashdotters say when the NSA programs are held to be legal? Its da Man keeping us down! Go back to bed, children.

When the people you're blowing the whistle on are the majority of the "authorities", that doesn't work too well. Call it "leaking", "snitching", or "pineappling" if you want, but it doesn't change the facts.

That's a flat-out wrong definition used by the Karl Rovian apologists. What does a "leaker" do when the subject of contention is the executive branch? Go to the cops and let the case get dropped [cnn.com]? A leaker is anyone who discloses protected information, regardless of the recipient. A whistleblower is leaker releasing evidence of illegal or unauthorized activity or a coverup of that activity.

I've been absolutely disgusted with the blind allegiance of my so-called brethren citizens who are actually gullible enough to propagate this nonsense. And, you know exactly what you're trying to do. Open your eyes and stand up against these tyrants before it's too late for ALL of us!

I'm with you on name-calling (it's fun but it doesn't exactly promote dialog), but please tell me how your use of hard core left leaner is not name-calling? And WTF is a hard core leaner, anyway? Don't moderates lean one way or the other, while the hard core guys are all the way out?

Also, grandparent supported his argument with a relevant example (follow the link), so it's not the case that he's got "no other option." Unlike... your response?

I call you that because this strained definition of leaker VS whistleblower originates from the Bush administration trying to equate their leaks of a CIA agent's identity to that of any other innocuous information fed to the press; and at the same time remove the saintly aura of *Whistleblower* status from the hordes of disillusioned executive branch employees who've now gone public.

...the public is the ultimate authority, so there is no difference between revealing information to the public and revealing it to the authorities.

The idea that there is a difference is a relic of the idea of government by a king whose authority came from some combination of divine grant, parentage, etc., and had nothing to do with the will of the people.

...the public is the ultimate authority, so there is no difference between revealing information to the public and revealing it to the authorities.

The idea that there is a difference is a relic of the idea of government by a king whose authority came from some combination of divine grant, parentage, etc., and had nothing to do with the will of the people.

Nonsense. You're forgetting that part of the people's will is that their government act to do things dealing with security, especially needed against

You misunderstand. People opposed to this are not necessarily blind partisans. I am a democrat, but if Pelosi knew the full details of this program AND signed off on it, she should leave office. This program is unacceptable.

Nonsense. You're forgetting that part of the people's will is that their government act to do things dealing with security, especially needed against organizations and individuals who have said that they'll seek to kill US citizens and harm the economy, have actually done so more than once, and are saying, right now, that they are actively seeking to do more of the same.

Nonsense yourself. You are forgetting that part of the people's will is that their government not act to restrict the free flow of inform

You're forgetting one thing. The NSA doing domestic spying is illegal. In effect, the government has promised the people that the NSA will not spy on them, and is standing accused of breaking that promise.

Someone leaking, say, intelligence agents' names in North Korea would not be reporting illegal activity to the public and so would not be a whistle blower. This guy IS reporting illegal behaviour, so he is a whistle blower.

If the US government feels it needs to spy on its citizens then it should publicly repeal the laws and modify the mandates prohibiting this so the NSA activity would no longer be illegal. If the public doesn't object then they're fully justified.

P.S. In any case, even if you do get it out in time that they don't gain anything by shutting you up, you can expect to get fired so they can dismiss you as a "disgruntled former employee," and, if you've really got the dirt on them, you may also get your very own swiftboating.

"And yes kiddies, that means that the so called Whistleblower in the Nixon case who was named for a porn flick was in fact simply a leaker.

Wrong. The 'authorities' were part of the problem, Deep Throat went to the highest authority -- the people (via the media).

Not that DT was completely altruistic in his motives, but when the corruption is at the highest level of government authority, the only power who has authority of them is the people.

Just to toss out an ad hominem / straw man: Or do you believe that the people have no authority over government? And that the only body the government answers to is itself? With the recent destruction of the balance of power and checks & balances, to tell you the truth, it's becoming that way. IMO.

Whistleblowers are a type of leaker. It doesn't matter who they report to. What makes them a whistleblower is the reason for the leaking: Whisleblowers leak information in order to expose illegal or unethical activity being done by the organization they are a member of.

In which category would you place the action of filing evidence in a court of law?

The EFF sued ATT over eavesdropping in January. Mark Klein came forward with his evidence in April and as near as I can tell (press acounts *are* unclear) offered it to the EFF to be entered into evidence before the court.

Good God!/.ers today are about as ignorant about politics today as the Diggers were a few days back when most thought it was legal for a US national to travel over seas with the intent of having sex with a minor.Democratic regime? What are you smoking? The United States is a Federalist Republic... nothing like a democratic system, don't believe me? Think of this... if this country was truly a democracy in any way back in 2000 then Al Gore would have won the presidential election, not George W Bush.

Democratic regime? What are you smoking? The United States is a Federalist Republic

Uh, those aren't orthogonal categories.
The US is a representative democracy (government authority is exercised in practice by officials elected by and theoretically accountable to the people through a system established in law, or by persons appointed by people so elected), and a federal (organized as an association of smaller constituent governments) republic (system of government not headed by a monarch).

The question is, when will the dam finally burst? When will we see headlines talking about impeachment?

Yes, that is a horrible, witless analogy. Impeachments aren't waiting in the wings, held back by some action from an administration. They are brought to the person in question based on actions, lying to grand juries, etc (ask the last president).

If you're paying any attention to this story beyond simple partisan axe grinding, you'll find that people like Bush's arch-nemises in the house and senate (l

Yes, that is a horrible, witless analogy. Impeachments aren't waiting in the wings, held back by some action from an administration. They are brought to the person in question based on actions, lying to grand juries, etc (ask the last president)

Actually, if two states file for impeachment, the Congress has to start proceedings.

It's this thing called the Constitution: learn it, love it.

We have to remember the last Presidency to fall for this was for just using tape recorders to tap just one phone, which then revealed taped conversations in only one room (the Oval Office) - the information in those tapes was what resulted in the hearings.

Oh, and there was some issue of a quagmire of a war that we didn't need to fight that was bankrupting the nation for no reason. no historical correlation to today, of course...

Impeachments aren't waiting in the wings, held back by some action from an administration. They are brought to the person in question based on actions, lying to grand juries, etc (ask the last president)

Actually, if two states file for impeachment, the Congress has to start proceedings.

It's this thing called the Constitution: learn it, love it.

We have to remember the last Presidency to fall for this was for just using tape recorders t

[...]there are various methods of setting an impeachment in motion: by charges made on the floor on the responsibility of a Member or Delegate; by charges preferred by a memorial, which is usually referred to a committee for examination; or by a resolution dropped in the hopper by a Member and referred to a committee; by a message from the President; by charges transmitted from the legislature of a State or Territory or from a grand jury; or from facts developed and reported by an investigating committee of the House.

I don't know where the GP post got two states from; as far as I can see, it only takes one state legislature filing charges to start a bill of impeachment. Not that such means the House has to pass the bill if the charges show up; and the Senate doesn't get (legally) involved unless the House passes the bill. But charges sent by a state legislature are enough to start the process. Of course, a lot of bills of impeachment have been introduced in our history; most have been killed quickly, one was aborted by a resignation, and two went to trial in the Senate. It's not until either of the latter looks likely that things get interesting.

"If you're paying any attention to this story beyond simple partisan axe grinding, you'll find that people like Bush's arch-nemises in the house and senate (like Nancy Pelosi) have been briefed on these exact NSA programs since 2001, just weeks after 9/11."

You pretend to be non-partisan, but this is the current partisan Republican party line. "Democrats do horrible things too, so don't complain when we do horrible things. Democrats in Congress voted for the USA PATRIOT Act, so stop blaming us."

This is missing the entire point. Both Republicans and Democrats in Congress are responsible for the current evisceration of the liberties some of us still demand. Just like those Democrats who blame the Republicans, you are unable to see past your my-team your-team warfare to realize that the Republicans in power, just like the Democrats in power, are responsible for this.

When will you realize that your sacred Republican leaders of this vicious circus don't deserve defense just because the Democrats have helped them gain nigh-totalitarian control?

If you're paying any attention to this story beyond simple partisan axe grinding, you'll find that people like Bush's arch-nemises in the house and senate (like Nancy Pelosi) have been briefed on these exact NSA programs since 2001, just weeks after 9/11. Why do you think that only the wingnuts, and not the actual-in-the-know political opposition (which would love to do anything to embarass Bush) aren't being very vocal on this particular subject? Because they know what it really does, have known about it for years, and recognize what a serious breach it is to have it spilling about in the news. Of course they don't mind the political damage it's causing when it's absurdly, factlessly spun in the media, but people like Pelosi know better than to directly attack on this subject - because she's in the same loop and has been for years.

The text above presumes that the congressional oversight committee for these programs has the power to actually do anything. This presumption is incorrect.

The small committee briefed on these NSA programs is prohibited from discussing the programs anywhere outside the briefings. So what is a committee member to do if they have concerns? Ask someone outside if, hypothetically, some hypothetical NSA program could be improper? No way - that would put you in jail. Even after the programs are semi-public, these committee members are still prohibited from discussing the programs. Pelosi herself, in an NPR interview a few weeks back, expressed that she had wanted to speak out on the warrantless wiretap program from the very beginning, but was powerless to get external verification of her concerns, because doing so would reveal that the program existed.

Could the committee do something internally, by itself? Perhaps, were it so moved. But since the committee is heavily Republican, the likelihood of that happening is slim (though growing somewhat wider in a time where Republicans seem to want to portray themselves as standing independent of the president, at least until after Nov 2006. But I digress).

That's why you don't see anyone from the "oversight" committee saying anything. Because the oversight committee is just for show, actually having no real power of oversight. Real oversight would allow for accountability, and no one can be held accountable for programs that no one is allowed to talk to anyone about.

The small committee briefed on these NSA programs is prohibited from discussing the programs anywhere outside the briefings. So what is a committee member to do if they have concerns?

If sufficiently concerned over the issue, raise the issue on the floor of the house in question, before the entire house in secret session. While there are potentially serious repercussions to such a move, up to censure or expulsion from that house (subject to the internal rules), that's the most that can happen. Congresscritters have a constitutional immunity from prosecution by any other body for anything they say there. (Article I, section 6: "for any speech or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place" [cornell.edu].)

If done in the Senate, one need merely find an amenable party member willing to trustingly second a Rule 21 [senate.gov] motion to raise the issue with some deference to secrecy, which may help prevent expulsion. In the House of Representatives, secret sessions are governed by Rule XVII, clause 9 [gpo.gov], and it looks like you don't even need a second to close the House. Technically, I suppose a sufficiently pissed member need not even close their house to secret session before starting the debate... but that likely would make the consequences under internal rules much more serious.

Of course, while outright expulsion would be unlikely for a closed session debate (takes too many votes, and is too likely to make an instant political martyr), there's a real risk of losing the committee seat, along with any others held; it's also not exactly the sort of thing that engenders future interbranch co-operation, or comprehensive briefings to the oversight committee. The current White House would throw a howling excretory tantrum. However, I would hope that my elected officials would know when to start making a stink. This needed a stink a long time ago (or, less preferably, a change in the law before the laws got broken).

If I had mod points, I'd find a way to give you all of them. But also let me rebut.

If sufficiently concerned over the issue,...

Right there at the beginning. As I heard it described by Ms. Pelosi, the problem she had was in determining whether her concern was warranted. The best way for her to do so would be to discuss the situation with an uninterested third party, which for obvious reasons is not possible.

While you're correct about raising the issue before the whole House in secret session, that concept may ignore the politics of the game somewhat. Because the information was leaked to the public, and there was a public outcry, there are members of Congress from both sides of the aisle raising concerns. Had it been brought to the House in secret session, it would have been all too easy - outside of public view - for partisan politics to continue. I predict the Republicans would have stood together to make Ms. Pelosi (or anyone coming before that body) out to be supporting the terrorists by trying to inhibit the ability of our intelligence services to do their job protecting the American people from the threat of attack.

See? I've been hearing that crap so long I can spew it myself!

Anyway, without the public at least partially in the know, the Republican-controlled government (all three branches, remember?) would simply continue on with the smoke screen about terrorists. Terrorism is the new Communism in the new McCarthyism.

If you're paying any attention to this story beyond simple partisan axe grinding, you'll find that people like Bush's arch-nemises in the house and senate (like Nancy Pelosi) have been briefed on these exact NSA programs since 2001, just weeks after 9/11.

This statement can have no basis in fact without your personal presence on Senate or House intelligence committees. Having lied at every opportunity and avoided those venues where such lying would be criminal (FISA) why would this administration choose to reveal the truth to Feinstein, Boxer and Pelosi, et. al.

Why do you think that only the wingnuts, and not the actual-in-the-know political opposition (which would love to do anything to embarass Bush) aren't being very vocal on this particular subject?

Because the loyal opposition is so cowed by the Bloody Shirt of Terror that they cannot bring themselves to confront the administration on this or any other aspect of the War on Dust.

Because they know what it really does, have known about it for years, and recognize what a serious breach it is to have it spilling about in the news.

No one knows what it really does except the spooks who built it. As to the case for a serious breach, enumerate for me the lives lost in consequence of any of the numerous breaches in this notoriously leaky ship of state. Now form a ratio with the number of lives lost to the mindless, indeterminate and interminable wars the administration has declared on a) information, b) wingnut islamists making political hay on the street in the crescent out of our belligerence and c) the secular parties who are our natural allies in the region. Limit yourself to righteous and holy 'Merkin lives if you so desire.

If you're paying any attention to this story beyond simple partisan axe grinding, you'll find that people like Bush's arch-nemises in the house and senate (like Nancy Pelosi) have been briefed on these exact NSA programs since 2001, just weeks after 9/11.

Whether they were briefed on the "exact" programs or not is not clear; apparently, Pelosi was briefed on something related to the program that came to light months ago, and objected to it when she was briefed on it. OTOH, since the program that has recently come to light is not the same one that was revealed months ago, its not at all clear who was briefed on what, though in order to provide political cover, the administration has released lists purporting to account the number of times particular members received some briefing relating to the NSA surveillance programs.

But the number of briefings isn't the issue, even when you restrict it to whether Congress was informed. The completeness and accuracy of the briefings is the issue.

arch-nemises in the house and senate (like Nancy Pelosi) have been briefed on these exact NSA programs since 2001, just weeks after 9/11

Based on the runup to the Iraq War and essentially all other actions undertaken by congressional democrats in the last four years, I disagree with your assessment of the idea that Nancy Pelosi is an adversiary of George W. Bush.

the actual-in-the-know political opposition

I furthermore disagree with your claim that there exists an "actual in-the-know political opposition".

Because they know what it really does, have known about it for years, and recognize what a serious breach it is to have it spilling about in the news. Of course they don't mind the political damage it's causing

I furthermore disagree with your dual implications here that

The "serious breach" that public knowlege of this program represents, and the "political damage", are two different things

Congressional democrats "don't mind", or are in some way beneficiaries of, the "political damage" here

Personally I think top-ranking congressional democrats are just as much potential casualties of the "political damage" that this breach makes possible, as the White House is. The toadyism in Congress crosses party lines, and I think congressional democrats such as Ms. Pelosi need very badly to keep their base from finding out exactly how badly they have been sold out.

I think it's about to. We'll see in November. Although I'm personally not voting Democrat, I'm splitting my vote among various losers, which is closest to "none of the above". I'm damned sick of both parties (although the Repubs have more of my ire at present).

When will we see headlines talking about impeachment?

As I'm old enough to have voted for Nixon, I'd say as soon as the Democrats control both Senate and Congress.

The bush presidency is like a dam with a crack in it. At present, the crack is fairly small, but water is leaking out and the crack is widening. The question is, when will the dam finally burst? When will we see headlines talking about impeachment? When will people finally wake the fuck up and say enough is enough? Will there ever be an end to the war on terra? Will we ever see a terror level below yellow? Does anyone believe the bushit?

The worst ones are the fuckers that voted for him in the 2nd round, and now are all disappointed and disaproving.WTF?They couldn't see that the guy has no clue about terrorism, liberty and security until after all his ideas costs us thousands of lives, loss of rights, and loss of international credibility?I actually heard people say they're glad about security checkpoints at stadiums and other family venues.I lived in a communist country once, and I can tell you, in some respects this place is just as much

There is absolutely no possibility that it's something like an AT&T monitoring system to make sure that its employees are not committing fraud, hackers are not abusing the network, etc...

Not only did he not have access to it, but he also stated: "The telltale sign of an illicit government spy operation is the fact that only people with security clearance from the National Security Agency can enter this room."

The NSA doesn't monitor communications businesses for fraud, hacking, etc. That's not their job. Their job is signals/intelligence collection and analysis. A room in a datacenter that's off-limits to everybody but people with NSA security clearences is basically screaming "I'm a massive phone/data tap".

The NSA doesn't monitor communications businesses for fraud, hacking, etc. That's not their job. Their job is signals/intelligence collection and analysis. A room in a datacenter that's off-limits to everybody but people with NSA security clearences is basically screaming "I'm a massive phone/data tap".

Not only that, they aren't allowed to gather intelligence on American citizens. Only the fbi can.

"There is absolutely no possibility that it's something like an AT&T monitoring system to make sure that its employees are not committing fraud, hackers are not abusing the network, etc..."Obviously, you're being sarcastic, but assuming you're right, it would not be difficult for an officer of the court to validate what you're saying.

I mean, this case could be over in 1 day if AT&T wants to cooperate, open the door and let the court look.

And of course, if they were sued over such a program, the Bush administration would immediately file a brief saying no evidence about it could be made public for national security reasons.

No, sorry... No one is bothering to say "this isn't true", they're saying "we can't let this come out because it will damage national security". To me, that's pretty much admitting the program exists and does what is alleged, probably more (which is why they're willing to fight so hard to keep the details secret).

This has been brewing since the initial wiretapping scandal. The reason the administration insisted so loudly that they didn't need to get FISA approval (even though it would have been easy) is because there's more going on here. They've got some sort of system set up that monitors all communications and data-mines the content for terrorist (and probably criminal) activity. They can't possibly get a warrant to examine every single phone call ever made, which is why they say they don't need a warrant.

However, I don't think they're doing it out of malice, or anything. Not yet, anyway. I think they probably are using it mostly for intelligence needs currently. But just as the Patriot Act is increasingly being used to try non-terrorist suspects, and the very terms "terrorist" and "weapons of mass destruction" are being re-defined in court, it won't be long until this data-mining is being used for everything the government wants to do.

If you're not worried about the system being used to look for terrorists, imagine it being used to look for tax fraud or illegal gun ownership. Then decide if you want this system in place.

Absolutely. But would you or the American people vote to allow the NSA to tap your phones to fight tax fraud? Hopefully not. Terrorism, though, carries an emotional weight that many people seem unable to look beyond. Those who can look beyond it realize that these measures aren't necessary, and that giving up freedom isn't necessary either.

So my point is that the system is going to be used for investigating things other than terrorism, and we as citizens should decide whether we want that to happen on its own merits, not because the spectre of "terrorism" has been raised.

The government asked a federal judge here Friday to dismiss a civil liberties lawsuit against the AT&T Corporation because of a possibility that military and state secrets would otherwise be disclosed. The lawsuit, accusing the company of illegally collaborating with the National Security Agency in a vast surveillance program,...
Source [nytimes.com]

Why would the government get involved if it was AT&Ts own monitoring system?

But IF... IF this spying program is meant to protect Americans from potential terrorist attacks, wouldn't it be better AS public knowledge?Wouldn't the terrorists just say, "Crap, they know about it! Call it off."

When bin Laden finally realized that he was being tracked by the satellite phone he used to use, he simply stopped using it and reverted to writing things down on paper. Much slower, but also much more difficult to intercept. He certianly didn't just give up because he couldn't talk to them on th

How's it effective? He and other members of al Queada have demonstrated extreme patience when planning terrorist attacks. Avoiding the use of phones, the internet, etc. to communicate certianly hasn't stopped them. Or do you consider simply delaying attacks as "effective"?

This is exactly my argument for rolling back the police state.

Since denying US citizens rights to privacy, free speech, free assembly, and a free press will only slow terrorist groups like al Queda down slightly, if at all, they are ineffe

But IF... IF this spying program is meant to protect Americans from potential terrorist attacks, wouldn't it be better AS public knowledge?

No. The knowledge you want out there is that which would be circulating only among some loosely affiliated cells of bad guys. You know, "Damn... we had that info exchange with Ahmed in Boston, and now I can't get hold of him. We'd better wait on what we're doing, and maybe try to get hold of those guys we've been talking to in Jordan..." etc. You don't want the bad gu